Indeed!
Some other quick thoughts:
1. Total vehicle mass might be reduced by about 5%, other things being equal (which they rarely are...!) Cost in production might come down similarly due to this packaging efficiency and reduced redundancy of parts - rather like FWD, in reverse. The rear engine/tranny/suspension cradle might even go down the same production lines as existing FWD platforms. The '80's Fiero comes to mind inside the GM camp...
2. Izz would probably come down even more -maybe 20% or so. This, plus shifting the yaw center farther back, should result in a much snappier steering response (but I'm guessing this isn't critical for the kind of driving Mark might be most interested in?)
3. The desire for rear traction, and the desire for steering neutrality, could finally converge under the hotrodder's favorite theme of narrow tires up front, and wide in the rear. RWD with a front-heavy bias tends to demand conflicting, opposing width parities.
4. From above, it would be easier to package really wide tires when they don't have to turn the vehicle as opposed to when they do.
5. Crash worthiness may be a big issue, however...
Anyway, I'm probably missing a bunch, but that's what I get off the top of my head (?)
Best,
MAP
Last edited by MAP; 12-12-2014 at 12:06 PM.
|